“KKK Hall to be built at Gettysburg”

For true parallelism, you can’t have as the new occupier the same person or entity that caused the deaths at the site. Instead, you have to have the fellow-travelers, the ideological descendants, the spiritual soul mates, the ones who have never given up on or repented the original theory leading to the massacre. These are my ideas:

KKK Meeting Hall to be built near Gettysburg site

Neo-Nazis build recreation center at Auschwitz

Pol Pot family to build resort center on “Killing Fields”

Of course, were any of the above to happen, one would hear the roar of outrage from one end of the media and the self-anointed elite to the other (especially if the first was to happen). However, in an age that sees the political elite driven in equal parts by political correctness and a never-acknowledged fear of the violence that lies at the heart of Islam, the bureaucrats approve this desecration and the media stays silent.

And it is a desecration, because this mosque is about conquest. This is not a mosque that is being urged on the site by sheer coincidence or as an act of contrition. It is being financed and built by the ideological soul mates of the same men who hijacked four planes; crashed into two towers, one low-lowing building, and a field; and caused almost 3,000 deaths on a single horrible morning. The conquerors march and the quislings bow. Feh.

Share this:

“The reason why you got those responses is due to implying or stating the claim that you knew people’s motivations here as only being anti-Islam…”

Y, I appreciate your comments. I never stated or made any claim that I knew people’s motivations. I may have implied it on some level, but considering the responses I was pretty clear from the beginning that based on what I had read lead me to my own interpretation. I was asking the question that has been bugging me from the time this became an issue. In fact, I believe what happened to me is exactly what you claim I did… people assumed I was a “dhimmi” or had my “head in the sand”. I may have responded to some with some snark, but from the beginning I was respectful.

But what are the other reasons to block this? No one has told me verifiable and provable reason this mosque should be blocked at this point. The best I got is that Islam has a history of this sort of thing and that it will send a message to the Muslim world as a victory. All possibly true, but hardly a reason to break (or bend) our own laws and deny someone their rights.

I’m not arguing for it mind you. I’m just not arguing against it. The way I see it, we can’t win this one. It’s one of those moments, assuming everything we all fear about this guy is true, where our own freedom, values and laws will be used against us.

Instead of trying to find a way to block it maybe we should be talking about a way to respond to it. I read somewhere that some developer is looking to open up a gay bar specializing in outreach to closeted gay Muslim men.

“Why is that another issue altogether?? Why should muslims and other extremist sects get the royalty treatment, and Christians get the shaft?”

Because it is not within the scope of this debate. I don’t agree with any group getting special treatment. I don’t agree with identity politics on any level. Therefore I would not support targeting Muslims for special treatment, both positive and negative. I don’t claim it isn’t happening, only that I personally won’t provide historical precedence for its continued use by partaking in it as a strategy against a group that I don’t particularly like. That’s all.

“Let’s face it…muslims kill people who insult them. Christians don’t (aside from criminals who may say they’re Christians, but their actions belie them).”

Agreed… and if they do it here the full force of the law is brought upon them. So far as I can tell we are not giving Muslims who commit violent crimes here any special treatment. The media may choose to ignore the Muslimness, but our law enforcements still goes after them regardless of who they worship.

“So it’s much safer to deny law-abiding Christians who play by the rules than muslims who are very practiced in deceit and corruption – in addition to being threatening.”

So because it is happening to Christians we should fully get behind doing it to Muslims? Seems to me the right strategy should be to oppose denial of rights of all citizens, regardless of their religion. Two wrongs do not make a right.

“Assuming that none here are in favor of doing anything illegal – what reasoning should we consider?”

That’s what I have been asking. I don’t have an answer for you.

Question for you: you make the implication that Muslims are extremists and that they kill people. Do you see no difference between radical Islam and other Muslim? Are all Muslim suspect simply because they are Muslim. I only ask this because it gives me a frame of reference as to where you are coming from.

Sean

SADIE

Just a few thoughts on the give n’ take above.

All well and good to seek logic and laws, but this works best when we’re all using the same logic and law. The problem is that Islam does not and is in fact tweaking them. Bookworm, in another post nicely pointed out that Islam is not just a religion, it is also a political system [forgive me, Bookworm for bringing down your post to a simple sentence].

We are not working off the same page. When we make a decision to buy a car, we do it on past performance reports. When we buy a home, we investigate the school system, the neighborhood and what the area provides in services. If I may parallel Islam to the Blue Book on vehicles – it’s a lemon. 1400 years later, it still runs on fumes, is accident prone and a high risk vehicle to insure. There is no braking system built in and this is where the rubber meets the road (or doesn’t). Non muslims are non entities, just annoying pedestrians crossing the road.

spiff580

“Why should we not be trying to block it? Assuming legal efforts, of course. I don’t understand why we shouldn’t be trying every means legally possible…”

Because, unless I am missing something here, the Imam has met all the legal requirements and was approved by the local planning commission to proceed. So at this point, outside of changing the laws and/or twisting and bending existing laws, there is nothing we can do legally to block it.

spiff580

“If I may parallel Islam to the Blue Book on vehicles – it’s a lemon. 1400 years later, it still runs on fumes, is accident prone and a high risk vehicle to insure. There is no braking system built in and this is where the rubber meets the road (or doesn’t). Non muslims are non entities, just annoying pedestrians crossing the road.”
But in our system, we cannot legally judge an individual citizen, based on the actions of others. We must look at the individual separately and judge him/her on their actions/words alone; innocent before proven guilty. Am I wrong here? Am I missing something?

SADIE

Am I missing something?

We are not judging an individual. If GM put out one bad vehicle which required a recall and continued to produce all other cars with a excellent performance level – I’d say, no, don’t judge the company one one designer flaw.

We are not dealing with one vehicle or one person – we have problems with the CEO, who just gave the design engineer a raise. We are not condemning the workers on the assembly line. There are, I am sure plenty of moderate muslims, unfortunately their union does not allow for input.

Christianity has evolved into many voices, Protestants, Baptists, etc. Judaism has morphed beyond orthodox into conservative and reform movements. Islam separated into Sunni, Shi’ite and Wahhabi. Have any of the three branches of Islam evolved into a moderate voice. NO. To the contrary, Wahabbi, the last of the three is the most extreme, with the most money and the most influence. Islam does not desire or need to meet ‘legal requirements’ only those laws that are defined by the Koran and Shariah law.

spiff580

That’s not what I am asking though. Our legal system cannot judge this Imam based on the actions or words of other Muslims.

On a personal level I will look at every Muslim I meet with suspicion… that would be the wise and security minded thing to do (as I was told never trust a fat Iraqi with a skinny neck).

suek

>>innocent before proven guilty>>

Only in a court of law. Applying this standard to daily life leads to foolish risk taking.

You want to know where I come from: I believe that taqqiya exists, and is practiced by those jihadists who wish to establish islamic dominance in the US. I think that determining which muslims are lying and which are not is beyond my capability, so I distrust all of them. I understand that this is “un-American” and to some extent offensive – but I also believe that it is my only protection – the nation’s only protection. I know it’s unfair to those who simply wish to live their lives in freedom – but I also think they’ll understand.

I stand with Sadie.

>>So at this point, outside of changing the laws and/or twisting and bending existing laws, there is nothing we can do legally to block it.>>

So you say. People bend and twist laws all the time. As long as the courts allow and as far as I’m concerned every possible roadblock is fair game. When the end game is reached, then the outcome will be whatever it is. Until then, I say fight with whatever tools are at hand. (Usual disclaimers)

suek

PS…

I watched the OJ trial. The court said he was innocent. I say he was guilty. Only God and OJ know the truth…but any action I took (if such an opportunity arose) would be based on my own judgment. The law and society have to look after themselves.

SADIE

@Spiff580

I understand what you are asking and in many ways it’s asking for the impossible. We make decisions based on the known or proven beyond a doubt in a court of law. Rauf does not condemn Hamas nor to the best of my knowledge has he overtly supported Hamas. Rauf straddles questions like an Arabian cowboy. He claims to be a bridge builder and yet does not burn any bridges. So, in a sense he prefers a double decker bridge. He decides whether he takes the upper or lower to cross into dialogue. He has proven to be non-committal.

That’s not what I am asking though. Our legal system cannot judge this Imam based on the actions or words of other Muslims.

Rauf or el-Gamal or Amr Moussa – the players are out of the same deck of cards. If Rauf ‘s intentions were honorable. He could have called for a community meeting, drawing in all faiths into a dialogue to seek some sort of collective thought, bargaining or action. He did not. His actions or distractions call them what you may speak for themselves. I have heard the voices of a few ‘assembly line workers’. I have not heard one imam suggest that building is poisonous, unless it was to blame the Jews. Of course, we can judge Rauf – all of his actions are lack thereof are based on known associations. I won’t fill up much more on this post and allow the links and my comments below speak for itself.

Agreed; found this on Ace of Spades website. Good for some laughs if you like Star Wars:

Sean

spiff580

@Sadie,

I’m sorry, I missed your second to last post, so I feel like I need to respond to it before I put it to rest.

“I understand what you are asking and in many ways it’s asking for the impossible. ”

Actually, what I am asking for is not impossible. What I am asking or saying is that we keep to our conservative values of the rule of law. Sometimes that means we have to accept things we dont like.

You are asking this builder (and other Muslims) to meet requirements that we don’t require or expect from other groups or religions. I don’t believe we have passed a law that requires Muslims to meet special codes and requirements to build mosques or grants or denies them rights. You are asking them to prove negative.

“If Rauf ‘s intentions were honorable. He could have called for a community meeting, drawing in all faiths into a dialogue to seek some sort of collective thought, bargaining or action.”

I agree; but there is no law or regulation that requires such. Nor is this a valid reason to block it legally.

“Surprise, no surprise as it turns out the site is half owned by Con Ed, who leased to Sharif el-Gamal (camel in English). Keep in mind the entire area was demolished, that which was not demolished was left in economic chaos. This when the ‘arab carpetbaggers’ begin or more accurately continues”

Interesting; I’m not sure how this makes your point that the guy is a bad guy. One could say they are hiding it for some reason… not sure why. On the other hand, maybe they just made a mistake and assumed they owned it or had rights to build there. I work in the design and construction of flood control projects in California. I see crap like this all the time… especially in urbanized areas. Sometimes it’s hard to tell who owns what properties and whether or not you have right of way to work there. It’s a freaking legal nightmare. Hell, after 10-years of being a civil engineer I do more lawyer stuff than I do actual engineering. Sorry Book, but I have a low opinion of lawyers… at least the ones involved in public work projects, environmental regulations (ESPICAILLY), and so forth. J

So what? One of the partners is the nephew of the Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa. Hardly a smoking gun here… or is the Arab League officially considered a terrorist group now? Or is there some provable ties that Moussa to Al Qaeda?

My point here where you see evil intentions in everything, I don’t. I never said I see noble intentions mind you. I’m just not willing to condemn without proof… and so far the case has not been made.

Is it because I have my “head in the sand” or is it the fact that the burden of proof has not been met? This is where Suek and I will never agree. Sure, personally I don’t trust Islam and view all Muslims (and their actions) with suspicion… but our legal system cannot. Personal feelings and suspicions are not enough.

SADIE

So what? One of the partners is the nephew of the Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa. Hardly a smoking gun here… or is the Arab League officially considered a terrorist group now?

YES, by me. Officially declared, NO. Then, again, I consider the UN to be a terrorist group.

I reiterate here, that Islam and the West are not working off the same legal system page. Islam allows taqiyya (lying) to advance or protect Islamic interests.

There were no mistakes in the lease. I understand enough about Islam to understand that there is no rush to a caliphate, just a slow, steady and plodding course from foot baths at the U of Michigan to Zaytuna College in Berkeley.

We’ll agree to disagree. I appreciate that you have stuck to your original talking point and me, I’ll stick with my personal feelings, suspicions and own personal experiences. Like you, a spent some time in the middle east but without a helmet or flak jacket and had to take a calculated risk going to work every day. It was suspicions and personal feelings that kept me intact along with luck.

spiff580

I don’t think we disagree all that much in principle actually. I just think the legal system on this has been exhausted is all. But then again it appears it’s going to a vote again … perhaps it will be shot down or delayed as it appears they have not met all of the legal requirements (i.e. they actually don’t own the property – I find that highly amusing).

I never want to go anywhere in the Middle East (again) without a flak jacket, helmet or weapon. You have my respect there. J

I understand that the NY governor has offered State property if they’ll just move the darn thing. Now how’s about _that_ for cha ching bling! So now _taxpayers_ dollars may go into the mosque???

suek

If anybody’s minding the store…my last comment (4:37) is waiting moderation. I had three links in it…

spiff580

Havent come through yet. Hope all is well on your end. Looking forward to reading them 🙂

BTW thanks for putting up with me… I know I’m being kind of difficult and perhaps stubborn.

suek

Stubborn, eh. No problem. I have 4 sons and one daughter. All of whom are stubborn. My mother used to say “You know, dear… they didn’t get it out of the gutter!”

Do you listen to Dennis Praeger? One of his favorite expressions is “I prefer clarity to agreement”. I’m with him. Nobody agrees 100% with anybody, I don’t think. Maybe on individual issues, but even then, the agreement may come from different perspectives. So we may disagree. That’s ok – but I do like to find out just exactly what the nub of disagreement _is_. Sometimes that can be really because we haven’t figured out just exactly where _we_ stand on the particulars. Discussion – and disagreement – help clarify the issues, both for ourselves and between us and others.

I understand that the NY governor has offered State property if they’ll just move the darn thing. Now how’s about _that_ for cha ching bling! So now _taxpayers_ dollars may go into the mosque???

If you’re of a mind and have time over the weekend, you might do a search on Flopping Aces

on the mosque (9/11 mosque, maybe?). There have been at least 5 different articles by various authors there with _extensive_ (nearly 200 responses each) comments – and yes – I’ve been among them.

I still haven’t figured out exactly what the problem is. I think it’s basically because it’s very American to accept people as they present themselves until they prove otherwise. The fact that _some_ muslims have already proven themselves otherwise is irrelevant – we want to believe each individual is innocent until proven guilty. For some of us, their 1400 year history is proof enough – considering the options – to assume guilt, especially since we’re _not_ talking about a court of law. For others it isn’t. I _think_ that’s the basic underlying disagreement…but I’m not really sure. By the way – here’s another question that comes up within the discussion – should there be any limits to tolerance?

The last article so far has been on the suggestion/intent (I’m not sure if he’s serious or not – I think he is) of Greg Gutfield to open a gay bar next door to the proposed mosque. The names for the bar that people have come up with….holey moley!!! Creative, offensive, funny – _all_ of the above!

It’s better to be stubborn than to let the Left and government walk all over you.

suek

Indeed.

Think about it… are you “stubborn” or just “sticking to your guns”? What’s the difference between “stubbornness” and “perseverence”?
When does stubbornness become a fault?

suek

Heh…

No answers. Let me give you the simple one:

_You’re_ stubborn. _I’m_ resolute.

spiff580

Hey All,

I appreciate all your comments. Sorry if I came off like I was feeling sorry for myself. I was more just saying thanks for putting up with me. 🙂 I haven’t had a lot of time to look at the new stuff yet.

I did read an article from back in June that connected this Imam with the organization that was behind the commando incident with Israel a few months back. That is interesting and a bit troubling.http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/imam_unmosqued_0XbZMwCvHAVdRZEKgx29AK
Not good. But then again, I never said I liked the guy either. Just not sure what we can do at this point outside of exerting public pressure. 🙂
Sean

spiff580

Suek,

I’ll get back to you. Just been busy last couple of days. 😉

Sean

suek

Spiff…
That was a joke.

As in…”I’m careful with money. You’re a cheapskate”…

And many others…we have lots of terms that have both a “good” and a “bad” connotation. Invariably in discussions, “I’m ” the “good” one, “you’re” the “bad” one. Human nature.